According to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the criminal legislation of the government was fundamentally improved. The commitment to undergo a radical makeover to make it more focused on the citizen-civilian experience from the police level up—including through innovations like providing victims with free copies of the First Information Report (FIR)—will be one of the most significant improvements. Even though the BNSS’s Statement of Objects and Reasons asserts that the statute is “ultimately centred on citizens’ rights,” if we take a closer look at the clause pertaining to free FIR access, we begin to see that it might not be able to fully realise the BNSS’s goals, particularly with regard to victims.
The Pre-BNSS and Post-BNSS Legal Framework
• In the past, Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) mandated that the informant be provided with a free copy of the FIR. This was done in order to make sure that criminal investigations followed an open and transparent procedure and to provide the informant a chance to observe how the investigations developed.
• The BNSS has changed Section 173(2) to require that the informant or victim obtain a copy of the FIR “forthwith” and at no cost to them. Despite being minor, this represents a significant change in the rights that victims have inside the criminal court system.
The Informant’s Function
The role of the informant
• According to traditional definitions, a “informant” is somebody who tells the authorities about the commission of a crime that can be prosecuted. An “informant” need not be a victim or witness to the offense, it should be mentioned. As long as the authorities are able to investigate after the information reveals a crime that can be punished, the law allows an informant to file a complaint based on information even if they were not personally there when the offense was committed. In decisions like Nankhu Singh v. State of Bihar and Hallu v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court has ruled that the informant does not have to be an eyewitness.
• As a result, the term “informant” has a broad definition that allows anybody to register a formal complaint (FIR) using information obtained from others or without even knowing about the crime. In some situations, the victim may never see or talk to the police or be involved in the initial phases of the case; however, depending on timetables, the victim may eventually be granted their access to information as the investigation moves forward.
Modification to the BNSS
• The requirement that the police provide a copy of the FIR to the victim or informant has been added under Section 173(2) of the BNSS. The term “either the informant or the victim” presents a situation where the victim might not immediately obtain a copy of the FIR if someone else submitted the report, even though this does extend to the victim. This can result in a predictable lapse in the victim’s entitlement to obtain important case information right away.
• Only one of the two parties might receive the FIR from the police under the old law. Problems also arise from the use of “informant or victim” and the failure to include a general provision for both parties, particularly where the informant is not the victim or does not care whether the victim’s best interests are taken into account. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs advised that the BNSS include a mechanism for both the victim and the informant to provide the FIR, which would have allowed for a more victim-centric approach.
The necessity of making victim’s rights more clear
• To create a system that is suitably victim-centric, Section 173(2) of the BNSS must be amended to allow the victim and informant to always receive copies of the FIR and be able to take part in every stage of the inquiry. According to Section 173(2) of the BNSS, the person who is now authorized to receive the FIR is the “informant or the victim.” The victim is not given the opportunity to file the FIR if the informant has already done so, which puts them in a difficult position to get involved throughout the inquiry and/or later procedures.
• After pointing out that the current phrasing is unclear, the Parliamentary Standing Committee suggested changing it to “or both, as the case may be.” A victim’s capacity to pursue justice will also be impacted if they are denied access to vital information.
What ‘Forthwith’ Means
• The copy of the FIR must be sent “forthwith,” which means soon or immediately, but not in a manner that would impede the inquiry, according to Section 173(2) of the BNSS. In light of the surrounding circumstances, the Supreme Court interprets “forthwith” as “as soon as possible” (R v. Central Colorado CC, [2009] OJ No. 642). This interpretation demonstrates the criminal justice system’s urgency in making sure victims and informants can get in touch with law enforcement and learn about the status of investigations.
• Regretfully, there is still uncertainty about this provision’s actual implementation. In many situations, a delay in filing the FIR can seriously hinder the victim’s comprehension of the charges against them, making it more difficult for them to refute the evidence or cooperate with law enforcement while the investigation is underway. Although this provision’s urgency is essential for giving the victim agency, its efficacy could be compromised in the absence of enforcement.
Essential Conditions for Victims
• In State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran, the Supreme Court seems to imply that the requirement to produce a copy of the FIR is just directory rather than mandatory, despite the fact that Section 173(2) of the BNSS utilizes the word “shall” to imply a required obligation. This case demonstrates how the changing field of victimology may make it more difficult for victims to exercise their BNSS rights.
• The question of whether the police should always be required to furnish the victim with the FIR emerges in light of the changing concept of victimology and the rights of those involved in the criminal justice process. A copy of the FIR must be given to the victim in order for them to actively engage in the legal process, since they are an important party involved in the case and should not be kept in the dark about the proceedings.
In conclusion
The BNSS’s §173(2) provision could be improved to prevent victims from being excluded from the criminal justice system in light of growing awareness of their rights. Transparency and empowering victim participation in the investigation depend on giving the victim a free copy of the FIR. However, in order to truly implement a citizen-centric statute, both the victim and the informant must receive a copy of the FIR promptly and unambiguously. The Parliamentary Standing Committee suggested changes that would enhance the mechanism for delivering collective justice while suitably defending victims’ rights and entitlements.
With a vast collection of material on a variety of legal topics compiled by the top experts in the field, Sharks of Law provides a comprehensive legal solutions facility. You can look for a lawyer who can satisfy your legal needs for an online consultation with this law business. If you have any questions that call for legal advice, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the requisite experience in all the relevant sectors.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/victims-right-to-a-free-copy-of-the-fir-under-bnss